Energy producers, environmental groups, utilities, business leaders and both political parties are opposed to Prop 7. So why is it on the ballot? Jim Gonzalez, a former San Francisco supervisor, is the sponsor of Prop. 7, but it is the brainchild of John Sperling, the billionaire founder of the University of Phoenix, and his son Peter, who's contributed $3 million to the campaign. Their vision: large solar mirror farms in the desert.

Their initiative defines "solar and clean energy plants" as facilities generating "30 megawatts or more," except for hydroelectric plants. That would exclude 60 percent of the "clean energy" being generated in California. Currently, 80 percent of the state's "green power" is produced by members of Independent Energy Producers, says Executive Director Jan Smutny-Jones. Not a single producer backs Prop 7. Its ambiguous wording on oversight would "create transmission chaos" and preclude rational solutions, he says. Furthermore, Proposition 7 requires utilities to buy renewable power even if it costs up to 10 percent above the market rate with 20-year contracts. The effect will be for companies to charge 10 percent above market whether they need to or not. Why take less? The proposition says it will not raise consumers' bills by more than 3 percent, but it doesn't enforce a cap.

Link to Article